Globalization and Environmental Challenges - Reconceptualizing Security in The 21st Century - Hans Günter Brauch PDF

00_GEC_Hex3.book Seite 27 Sonntag, 28.
Oktober 2007 1:18 13
Introduction: Globalization and Environmental Challenges:

Reconceptualizing Security in the 21st Century
Hans Gnter Brauch
1.1
Introductory Remark
This book focuses on the reconceptualization of security in the 21st century that has gradually evolved since
the end of the East-West conflict (19891991) and that
has been significantly influenced by processes of globalization and global environmental change.
This global turn has resulted in the end of the
Cold War (19461989), which some historians have interpreted as a long peace (Gaddis 1987, 1997) with a
highly armed bipolar international order, the collapse
of the Soviet Union (1991) and of a competitive global
ideology, system of rule and military superpower.
These events brought about a fundamental and peaceful change in international order that made the reunification of Germany (1990) and of Europe with the
Eastern enlargement of the EU (2004, 2007) possible.
This turn has been portrayed either as a victory
of US superiority (Schweitzer 1994) or as an outcome
of a political learning (Grunberg/Risse-Kappen
1992) based on a new thinking (Perestroika) of Gorbachev that contributed to the first major peaceful
global change in modern history. This global turn
(19891991) has been the fourth major change since
the French Revolution that was instrumental for the
emergence of a new international order. Three previous turning points in modern history were the result
of revolutions (1789, 19111918) and of wars (1796
1815, 19141918, 19311949) resulting in a systemic
transformation.
This fourth peaceful turn triggered a peaceful
(Czechoslovakia) and violent disintegration of multiethnic states (USSR, Yugoslavia); it contributed to the
emergence of failing states (e.g. Somalia, Afghanistan) and to new wars (Kaldor/Vashee 1997; Kaldor
1999; Mnkler 2002, 2005). Besides the events in Europe during 1989, events in other parts of the world
had no similar impact on the new global (dis)order
during the 1990s, e.g. the death of Mao Zedong
(1976) and the economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping
in China (19781990); the end of the dictatorships

and the third wave of democratization in Latin America; and the many new wars in Africa due to weak,
failing or failed states where warlords took over control in parts of West (Liberia) and Eastern Africa (Somalia), as well as in Asia (Afghanistan).
This chapter aims at a mental mapping of the
complex interaction between this most recent global
structural change and conceptual innovation that have
occurred in academia, in international organizations
as well as in the declarations and statements of governments since 1990 up to spring 2007. It refers only
briefly to the term and concept of security (1.2, see for
details chapters 39 in this volume), to the contextual
context: events, structures, concepts and action (1.3),
to the theme of contextual change, conceptual innovation as tools for knowledge creation and action (1.4),
to the drivers and centres of conceptual innovation
(1.5), to four scientific disciplines: history, philosophy,
social sciences, and international law (1.6), to the
Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace and to the goal of the three related volumes (1.7), to the goals, structure, authors, and audience of this book (1.8) as well as to the expected
audience of this book (1.9).
1.2
Object: Term and Concept of

Security.
Security is a basic term and a key concept in the social

sciences that is used in intellectual traditions and
schools, conceptual frameworks, and approaches.
The term security is associated with many different
meanings that refer to frameworks and dimensions,
apply to individuals, issue areas, societal conventions,
and changing historical conditions and circumstances.
Thus, security as an individual or societal political value has no independent meaning and is always related
00_GEC_Hex3.book Seite 28 Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2007 1:18 13
Hans Gnter Brauch
28
Table 1.1: Vertical Levels and Horizontal Dimensions of Security in North and South
Security dimension
Level of interaction
(referent objects)
Military
Political
Human
Environmental
Social
Social, energy, food , health, livelihood threats,

challenges and risks may pose a survival dilemma in
areas with high vulnerability
Village/Community/Society
National
Economic
Security dilemma of competing states

(National Security Concept)
International/Regional
Securing energy, food, health, livelihood etc.

(Human Security Concept) combining all levels of
analysis & interaction
Global/Planetary
to a context and a specific individual or societal value

system and its realization (see chap. 4 by Brauch).
Security is a societal value or symbol (Kaufmann
1970, 1973) that is used in relation to protection, lack
of risks, certainty, reliability, trust and confidence,
predictability in contrast with danger, risk, disorder
and fear. As a social science concept, security is ambiguous and elastic in its meaning (Art 1993: 821). Arnold Wolfers (1962: 150) pointed to two sides of the
security concept: Security, in an objective sense,
measures the absence of threats to acquired values, in
a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values
will be attacked.
For the constructivists, security is intersubjective
referring to what actors make of it (Wendt 1992,
1999). Thus, security depends on a normative core
that can not simply be taken for granted. Political constructions of security have real world effects, because
they guide action of policymakers, thereby exerting
constitutive effects on political order (see chap. 4 by
Wver, 37 by Baylis, 51 by Hintermeier in this vol.).
The security concept has gradually widened since
the 1980s (Krell 1981; Jahn/Lemaitre/Wver 1987;
Wver/Lemaitre/Tromer 1989; Buzan/Wver/de
Wilde 1995, 1998; Wver/Buzan/de Wilde 2008; chap.
38 by Albrecht/Brauch). For Wver (1997, chap. 4 and
44) security is the result of a speech act (securitization), according to which an issue is treated as: an
existential threat to a valued referent object to allow
urgent and exceptional measures to deal with the
threat. Thus, the securitizing actor points to an
existential threat and thereby legitimizes extraordinary measures.
Security in an objective sense refers to specific security dangers, i.e. to threats, challenges, vulnerabilities and risks (Brauch 2003, 2005, 2005a) to specific
security dimensions (political, military, economic, so-
cietal, environmental) and referent objectives (international, national, human) as well as sectors (social, energy, food, water), while security in a subjective sense
refers to security concerns that are expressed by government officials, media representatives, scientists or
the people in a speech act or in written statements
(historical sources) by those who securitize dangers
as security concerns being existential for the survival
of the referent object and that require and legitimize
extraordinary measures and means to face and cope
with these concerns. Thus, security concepts have always been the product of orally articulated or written
statements by those who use them as tools to analyse,
interpret, and assess past actions or to request or legitimize present or future activities in meeting the specified security threats, challenges, vulnerabilities, and
risks.
The Copenhagen School (Buzan/Wver 1997;
Wver 1997; Buzan/Wver/de Wilde 1998; Wver/
Buzan/de Wilde 2008), distinguished among five dimensions (widening: military, political, economic, societal and environmental), and five referent objects
(whose security) or levels of interaction or analysis
(deepening: international, regional, national, domestic
groups, individual). They did not review the sectorialization of security from the perspective of national
(international, regional) and human security (Brauch
2003, 2005, 2005a; table 1.1).
Influenced by different worldviews, rival theories
and mindsets, security is a key concept of competing
schools of a) war, strategic or security studies from a
realist perspective, and b) peace and conflict research
from an idealist or pragmatic view (chap. 40 by
Albrecht/Brauch). Since 1990, interparadigm debates
emerged between traditional, critical, and constructivist approaches. Within the UN and NATO, different concepts coexist, a state-centred political and
Introduction: Globalization and Environmental Challenges: Reconceptualizing Security
29
Table 1.2: Expanded Concepts of Security (Mller 2001, 2003; Oswald 2001, 2007)
Concepts of security
Reference object
(security of whom?)
Value at risk
(security of what?)
Source(s) of threat
(security from whom/ what?)
National Security [political,

military dimension]
The state
Sovereignty,
territorial integrity
Other states, guerilla, terrorism

(substate actors)
Societal security [dimension]
Nations,
societal groups
National unity,
identity
(States) Nations, migrants,

alien cultures
Human security
Individuals,
humankind
Survival,
quality of life
State, globalization, GEC, nature,

terrorism
Environmental security
[dimension]
Ecosystem
Sustainability
Humankind
Gender security
Gender relations,
indigenous people,
minorities, children,
elders
Equality, equity,
identity, solidarity,
social representations
Patriarchy, totalitarian institutions

(governments, religions, elites,
culture), intolerance, violence
military concept, and an extended security concept

with economic, societal, and environmental dimensions. A widening and deepening of the security
concept prevailed in OECD countries, while other
countries adhered to a narrow military concept
Not only the scope of securitization (Wver
1997, 1997a) has changed, but also the referent object
from a national to a human-centred security concept, both within the UN system (UNDP 1994;
UNESCO 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003; UNU 2002;
UNU-EHS 2004), and in the academic security community.
In European security discourses, an extended security concept is used by governments and in scientific debates (Buzan/Wver/de Wilde 1998). Mller
(2001, 2003) distinguished a national and three expanded security concepts of societal, human, and
environmental security. Oswald (2001, 2007, 2008)
introduced a combined human, gender and environmental (HUGE) security concept (table 1.2).
While since the 19th century the key actor has
been the state, it has not necessarily been a major referent object of security which is often referred to as
the people or our people whose survival is at stake
(Brauch chap. 3; Albrecht/Brauch chap. 38). From
1947 to 1989 national and military security issues became a matter of means (armaments), instruments (intelligence) and strategies (deterrence). Wver (1995:
45) argued that environmental issues may pose threats
of violent conflicts and that they may also put the survival of the people at stake (e.g. by forced migration)
without a threat of war.
Whether a threat, challenge, vulnerability, and risk
(Brauch 2005a, 2006) becomes an objective security
danger or a subjective security concern also depends
on the political context. While in Europe climate

change has become a major security issue, in the US,
during the administration of George W. Bush this
problem was downgraded. Labelling climate change a
security issue implies different degrees of urgency and
means for coping with it.
The traditional understanding of security as the
absence of existential threats to the state emerging
from another state (Mller 2002: 369) has been challenged both with regard to the key subject (the state)
and carrier of security needs, and its exclusive focus
on the physical or political dimension of security
of territorial entities that are behind the suggestions
for a horizontal and vertical widening of the security
concept.
The meaning of security was also interpreted as a
reaction to globalization and to global environmental
change. In Europe, several critical approaches to security gradually evolved as the Aberystwyth (Booth,
Wyn Jones, William), Paris (Bigo, Badie) and Copenhagen (Wiberg, Wver, Mller) schools that led to
the development of a New European Security Theory
(NEST, e.g. Brger/Stritzel 2005) and a networked
manifesto (CASE 2006; chap. 38 by Albrecht/
Brauch).
1.3
Events Structures Concepts

Action
Political and scientific concepts, like security, are used

within a complex context (Koselleck 2006). These
concepts have a temporal and systematic structure,
they embody and reflect the time when they were
used and they are thus historical documents in the
Hans Gnter Brauch
30
persistent change in the history of short events (histoire des vnements) and long structures (Braudels
(1949, 1969, 1972) histoire de la longue dure). Concepts are influenced by manifold perceptions and
interpretations of events that only rarely change the
basic structures of international politics and of international relations (IR).
The political events of 1989, the rare coincidence
of a reform effort from the top and a yearning for
freedom and democracy from the bottom, as part of
a peaceful upheaval in East Central Europe toppled
the Communist governments in all East Central European countries within three months, and thus were instrumental for the collapse of the Soviet Union and
the dissolution of the Warsaw Treaty Organization
and the Comecon (1991).
The Cold War bipolar order of two rival highly
armed political systems with the capability to destroy
the globe with its weapons of mass destruction based
on nuclear deterrence doctrines became obsolete as
well as the traditional security legitimizations with the
arms of the other side. This structural change of the
international order influenced the security policy
agendas and provoked a global political and scientific
debate on the reconceptualization of security. This debate has been global, stimulated by many policy actors, scientists and intellectuals. The results of this
process are documented in the national security doctrines and strategies (e.g. in the US) and in defence
white papers of many countries (e.g. in Germany
1994, 2006). They have also been an object of analysis
of the scientific community that gradually emancipated itself from the US conceptual dominance
(Wver 2004; Wver/Buzan 2006). But these Northern discourses on security have been unaware and ignored the thinking of the philosophical traditions in
Asia, Africa, Latin America, and in the Arab world.
While Huntington in his clash of civilization
(1993, 1996) succeeded to securitize culture from the
vantage point of US national security interests and
strategies, the critical responses (Said; Chomsky;
Ajami) reflected the cultural and religious diversity of
the other five billion people that have been primarily
an object of security thinking and policy during and
after the Cold War.
This reconceptualization of security has impacts
on international agendas and thus on political action
on many different levels. UNDP (1994) introduced a
people-centred human security concept that was subsequently promoted by the Human Security Network
(as freedom from fear), and by the Human Security
Commission (as freedom from want), to which Kofi
Annan added as a third pillar: freedom to live in dignity and the United Nations University (UNU) as the
fourth pillar: freedom from hazard impact (Bogardi/
Brauch 2005; Brauch 2005, 2005a).
An effort of the only remaining superpower to regain control over the security discourse in its war on
terror by trying to politically adapt scientific evidence
on climate change and to constrain scientific freedom
has failed. Other efforts by a leading neo-conservative
think tank to pay scientists a fee for challenging the
fourth IPCC Report (2007) to downgrade and thus to
de-securitize these new dangers posed by anthropogenic climate change may also fail.1
The increasing perception of global environmental
change (GEC) as a threat to the survival of humankind and the domestic backlash in the US against the
narrow security concepts and policies of the Neocons has widely established a widened, deepened, and
sectorialized security concept that increasingly reflects
the existing cultural and religious diversity also in the
political debate on security as well as in scientific discourses. In this context, this volume has a dual function: a) to map this global conceptual change; and b)
to create a wide scientific and political awareness of
the new threats, challenges, vulnerabilities and risks
that often differ from the perception of the present
political elite in the only remaining superpower.
Thus, conceptualizing security concepts and defining the manifold security interests and preferences,
structures the public policy discourse and legitimates
the allocation of scarce financial resources to face
and cope with major security dangers and concerns
that threaten the survival of states, human beings or
humankind and thus require extraordinary political
action.
1.4
Contextual Change, Conceptual

Innovation as Tools for
Knowledge Creation and Action
A key analytical question to which all authors were invited to reflect is to which extent the structural
change in the global and regional international order
1
See: Ian Sample: Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study, in: The Guardian, 2 February 2007; Elisabeth Rosenthal; Andrew C. Revkin: Science Panel
Calls Global Warming Unequivocal, in: The New
York Times, 3 February 2007; Juliet Eilperin: Humans
Faulted For Global Warming International Panel Of Scientists Sounds Dire Alarm, in: Washington Post, 3 February 2007.

was instrumental, triggered or contributed to this conceptual innovation and diversity in the global security
discourse since 1990 or to which extent other events
or regional or national structural changes have initiated a conceptual rethinking.
From the perspective of this author, major
changes in the international order for the past 500
years have been:
The Hispanic World Order: Expulsion of the
Arabs and conquest of the Americas (14921618)
by Spain and Portugal that resulted in a global
order dominated by the Christian civilized world
that perceived the South as primitive barbarians;
The peace of Mnster and Osnabrck (1648) after
the religious Thirty Years War (16181648), and the
emergence of the Westphalian European order
based on territorial states and an emerging international law;
The Utrecht Settlement and the century of war
and peace in the order of Christian princes (1715
1814).
After the independence of the United States (1776),
the French Revolution (1789), and the wars of liberation in Latin America (18091824) and the emergence
of many new independent states (18171839) in Europe four major international orders and major global
structural and contextual changes can be distinguished:
The Peace Settlement of Vienna (1815) and the
European order of a balance of power based on a
Concert of Europe (18151914) in an era of imperialism (Africa, Asia) and the post-colonial liberation in Latin America.
The Peace of Versailles (1919) with a collapse of
the European world order, a declining imperialism
and the emergence of two new power centres in
the US and in the USSR with competing political,
social, economic, and cultural designs and a new
global world order based on the security system of
the League of Nations (19191939).
The Political Settlement of Yalta (February 1945)
and the system of the United Nations discussed at
the Conferences in Dumbarton Oaks (1944),
Chapultepec (January/ February 1945), and adopted at San Francisco (April/June 1945).
With these turning points during the European dominance of world history, the thinking on security
changed. External and internal security became major
tasks of the modern dynastic state. With the French
Revolution and its intellectual and political conse-
31
quences the thinking on Rechtssicherheit (legal predictability guaranteed by a state based on laws) gradually evolved. With the Covenant of the League of
Nation collective security became a key concept in
international law and in international relations (IR).
Since 1945, this national security concept has become a major focus of the IR discipline that gradually
spread from iAberystwyth (1919) via the US after 1945
to the rest of the world. The Cold War (19461989)
was both a political, military, and economic struggle
and an ideological, social, and cultural competition
when the modern security concept emerged as a political and a scientific concept in the social sciences
that was intellectually dominated by the American
(Katzenstein 1996) and Soviet (Adomeit 1998) strategic culture. With the end of the Cold War, the systemic conflict between both superpowers and nuclear
deterrence became obsolete and its prevailing security
concepts had to be reconsidered and adjusted to the
new political conditions, security dangers, and concerns.
This process of rethinking or reconceptualization
of security concepts and redefinition of security interests that was triggered by the global turn of 1989
1991 and slightly modified by the events of 11 September 2001 (Der Derian 2004; Kupchan 2005; Risse
2005; Mller 2005; Guzzini 2005) and the subsequent
US-led war on terror has become a truly global process.
The intellectual dominance of the two Cold War
superpowers has been replaced by an intellectual pluralism representing the manifold intellectual traditions but also the cultural and religious diversity. In
this and the two subsequent volumes authors representing the five billion people outside the North Atlantic are given a scientific voice that is often ignored
in the inward oriented national security discourses
that may contribute little to an understanding of these
newly emerging intellectual debates after the end of
the Cold War.
According to Tierney and Maliniak (2005: 5864):
American scholars are a relatively insular group who
primarily assign American authors to their students.2
In an overview of three rival theories of realism, liberalism and idealism (constructivism), Snyder (2004:
5362) listed among the founders of realism (Morgenthau, Waltz) and idealism (Wendt, Ruggie) only
Americans but of liberalism two Europeans (Smith,
Kant). Among the thinkers in all three schools of realism (Mearsheimer, Walt), liberalism (Doyle, Keohane,
Ikenberry) and idealism (Barnett and the only two
women: Sikkink, Finnemore) again only Americans
Hans Gnter Brauch
32
qualified. This may reflect the prevailing image of the
us and they. But in a second survey Malinak, Oakes,
Peterson and Tierney (2007: 6268) concluded that:
89 per cent of scholars believe that the war [in Iraq] will
ultimately decrease US security. 87 per cent consider the
conflict unjust, and 85 per cent are pessimistic about the
chances of achieving a stable democracy in Iraq in the
next 10 15 years. 96 per cent view the United States
as less respected today than in the past (Malinak/
Oakes/Peterson/Tierney 2007: 63).
A large majority of US IR scholars opposed unilateral

US military intervention and called for a UN endorsement. Seventy per cent describe themselves as liberals
and only 13 per cent as conservative. Their three most
pressing foreign-policy issues during the next 10 years
reflect the official policy agenda: international terrorism (50 per cent), proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction (45 per cent), the rise of China (40 per
cent). Only a minority consider global warming (29
per cent), global poverty (19 per cent) and resource
scarcity (14 percent) as the most pressing issues.r
These snapshots refer to a certain parochialism
within the IR discipline which made the perception of
the global process of reconceptualization of security,
and of new centres of conceptual innovation on security more difficult. But the thinking of the writers outside the North Atlantic and their different concerns
matter in the 21st century when the centres of economic, political, and military power may shift to other
parts of the world (see part IX in this book).
1.5
Drivers and Centres of

Conceptual Innovation
The drivers of the theoretical discourse on security

and the intellectual centres of conceptual innovation
have moved away from both Russia (after 1989) but
gradually also from the United States. During the
1980s, the conceptual thinking on alternative se-
They claimed: The subject may be international relations, but the readings are overwhelmingly American.
Almost half of the scholars surveyed report that 10 per
cent or less of the material in their introductory courses
is written by non-Americans, with a full 10 per cent of
professors responding that they do not assign any
authors from outside the United States. Only 5 per cent
of instructors give non-Americans equal billing on their
syllabuses (Tierney/Malinak 2005: 63). While one third
in the US IR field are women, among the 25 most influential scholars are only men, among them many are considered leading security experts.
curity or defensive defence in Europe was looking

for political and military alternatives to the mainstream deterrence doctrines and nuclear policies
(Weizscker 1972; Afheldt 1976; SAS 1984, 1989;
Brauch/Kennedy 1990, 1992, 1993; Mller 1991, 1992,
1995). It was a major intellectual force behind the independent peace movement that called for both disarmament and human rights in both camps (e.g.
END, 19801989).
In 2007, the discourses on security are no longer a
primarily American social science (Crawford/Jarvis
2001; Hoffmann 2001; Nossal 2001; Zrn 2003). The
critiques of peace researchers and alternative security
experts in Europe during the 1970s and 1980s, but
also new national perspectives during the 1990s, e.g.
in France (Lacoste, Bigo, Badie), in the UK (Buzan,
Booth, Smith, Rogers), Canada (Porter 2001), Germany (Albrecht, Czempiel, Senghaas, Rittberger) challenged American conceptualizations of national security. Since the 1990s in Southern Europe a reemergence of geopolitics (France, Italy, Spain) could
be observed (Brauch, chap. 22). In other parts of the
world a critical or new geopolitics school emerged
(OTuahthail, Dalby) but also a spatialization of global
challenges (ecological geopolitics or political geo-ecology). In Germany there has been a focus on progressing debordering, or deterritorialization of political processes (Wolf, Zrn) primarily in the EU while
new barriers were directed against immigration from
the South in both the US (toward Mexico) and in Europe (in the Mediterranean).
Groom and Mandaville (2001: 151) noted an increasingly influential European set of influences that
have historically, and more recently, informed the disciplinary concerns and character of IR that have
been stimulated by the writings of Foucault, Bourdieu,
Luhmann, Habermas, Beck and from peace research
by Galtung, Burton, Bouthoul, Albrecht, Czempiel,
Rittberger, Senghaas, Vyrynen. Since the 1980s, the
conceptual visions of African (Nkruma, Nyerere and
Kaunda) and Arab leaders (Nasser), as well as the
Southern concepts of self-reliance and Latin American
theories of dependencia of the 1960s and 1970s
(Furtado 1965; Marini 1973; Dos Santos 1978) had
only a minor impact on Western thinking in international relations and on security.
Since 1990 the new centres of conceptual innovation are no longer the US Department of Defense or
the US academic centres in security studies in the Ivy
League programmes. The effort by US neo-conservatives to reduce the global security agenda to weapons

of mass destruction and to the war on terror has also
failed, and many scholars share the scepticism.
However, most journals on security studies (e.g.
International Security) are produced in the US and
the North American market has remained the biggest
book market for the security related literature. Since
1990 new journals on IR and security problems have
evolved elsewhere, and since 1992 the triennial panEuropean Conferences on International Relations
(ECPR) in Heidelberg (1992), Paris (1995), Vienna
(1998), Canterbury (2001), The Hague (2004) and Turino (2007) have supplemented the Annual International Studies Association conferences in North
America where the intellectual debates on both security, peace, environment, and development are taking
place. In August 2005 ECPR and ISA with partners in
other parts of the world organized the first world conference on international relations in Istanbul.
In the political realm, the US as the only remaining superpower irrespective of its 48 per cent
contribution to global arms expenditures (SIPRI
2006) has lost its predominance to set and control
the international security agenda and US scholars no
longer set the theoretical, conceptual, and empirical
agenda of the scientific security discourse. In Europe
and elsewhere new centres of intellectual and conceptual innovation have emerged in the security realm:
In Europe, Aberystwyth, Paris, and Copenhagen
have been associated with three new critical
schools on security theory (Wver 2004).
The Copenhagen School combined peace research
with the Grotian tradition of the English School,
integrating inputs from Scandinavian, British, German, and French discourses (Buzan/Wver/de
Wilde 1997; Wver/Buzan/de Wilde 2008).
The human security concept was promoted by
Mahub ul Haq (Pakistan) with the UNDP report
of 1994 and then developed further with Japanese
support by the Human Security Commission
(2003) and promoted both by UNESCO and
UNU globally.
Civil society organizations in South Asia developed the concept of livelihood security.
International organizations introduced the sectoral concepts of energy (IEA, OECD), food (FAO,
WFP), water (UNEP) and health (WHO) security
(see Hexagon vol. IV).
In the US and Canada, and in Switzerland and
Norway the concept of environmental security as
33
security concerns emerged during the 1980s and

1990s.
Since 1990 the epistemic community of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
provoked a global scientific and policy debate on
climate change.
The Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) and
its four programmes: IHDP (International
Human Dimensions Programme), IGBP (International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme), WCRP
(World Climate Research Programme) and
Diversitas and its project GECHS (Global
Environmental Change and Human Security)
resulted in global scientific networks that address
new security dangers and concerns.
Trends in the reconceptulization of security that will
be mapped in the Hexagon Series are:
widening, deepening, and sectorialization of security concepts;
shift of referent object from the state to human
beings or humankind (human security);
perception of new security dangers (threats, challenges, vulnerabilities, and risks) and securitization of new security concerns due to an articulation by national and international organizations,
scientific epistemic communities, and an attentive
public with a progressing decentralization and diversity of information control through the internet;
search for new non-military strategies to face and
cope with these newly perceived security dangers
and concerns and new environmental dangers,
hazards, and disasters that pose no classical security dilemma (Herz 1950, 1959, 1962) for states but
a survival dilemma (Brauch 2004, chap. 40) for
people.
These new drivers and centres of conceptual innovation have fundamentally challenged the narrow statefocused security concept of the traditionalists and realists in the Cold War.
1.6
History, Social Sciences,

Philosophy, International Law
Events, structures, and concepts stand for three different historical approaches of:
a history of events (of states and government
elites) in diplomacy, conflicts, and wars focusing
on the activities of states during wars;
Hans Gnter Brauch
34
a history of structures (history of longue dure
and of conjunctural cycles) in the accounts on
social, societal, and economic history;
a history of ideas (Ideengeschichte) and concepts
(Begriffsgeschichte).
1.6.1
Contextual Change and Conceptual

History
The history of concepts was instrumental for a major

German editorial project on key historical concepts
(Brunner/Conze/Koselleck 19721997). Koselleck
(1979, 1989, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2006) addressed
the complex interlinkages between the temporal features of events, structures, and concepts in human
(societal) history but also the dualism between experience and concepts (chap. 3 by Brauch).
Conze (1984: 831862) reviewed the evolution of
the meaning of the German concepts security (Sicherheit) and protection (Schutz) that evolved based
on Roman and Medieval sources since the 17th century with the dynastic state and was closely linked to
the modern state. Since 1648 internal security was distinguished from external security which became a key
concept of foreign and military policy and of international law. During the 17th and 18th centuries internal
security was stressed by Hobbes and Pufendorf as the
main task of the sovereign for the people.
In the American constitution, safety is linked to
liberty. During the French Revolution the declaration
of citizens rights declared security as one of its four
basic human rights. For Wilhelm von Humboldt the
state became a major actor to guarantee internal and
external security while Fichte stressed the concept of
mutuality where the state as the granter of security
and the citizen interact. Influenced by Kant, Humboldt, and Fichte the concept of the Rechtsstaat (legally constituted state) and Rechtssicherheit (legal
predictability of the state) became key features of the
thinking on security in the early 19th century (Conze
1984).
The concept of social security gradually evolved
in the 19th and 20th centuries, especially during F.D.
Roosevelts New Deal as a key goal to advance the security of the citizens: the security of the home, the
security of the livelihood, and the security of the social insurance. This was addressed in the Atlantic
Charter of 1941 as securing, for all, improved labour
standards, economic advancement and social security. In 1948 social security became a key human right
in Art. 22 of the General Declaration of Human
Rights.
The national security concept in the US resulted

in the emergence of the American security system
(Czempiel 1966), or of a national security state (Yergin
1977). It was used to legitimate a major shift in the
mindset from the isolationism of the 1930s to the internationalism in the post-war years, i.e. from a fundamental criticism of military armaments to a legitimization of an unprecedented military and arms build-up
and militarization of the mindset of post-war foreign
policy elites.
The changes in the thinking on security and their
embodiment in security concepts are also a semantic
reflection of the fundamental changes as they have
been perceived in different parts of the world and
conceptually articulated in alternative or new and totally different security concepts. Competing securitization efforts of terrorism or climate change are behind
the transatlantic and global security policy debate and
the global scientific conceptual discourse.
1.6.2
Conceptual Mapping in the Social

Sciences
In the social sciences, the security concept has been

widely used in political science (chap. 37 by Baylis in
this vol.), and economics (chap. 36 by Mursheed and
43 Mesjasz) that focus on different actors: on the political realm (governments, parliaments, public, media,
citizens); on society (societal groups) and on the business community (firms, customers, economic and fiscal policies). In political science, the security concept
has been used in its threefold context: policy (field of
security policy), politics (process on security, military,
and arms issues), and polity (legal norms, laws, and
institutions on the national and international level).
The US National Security Act of 1947 (Czempiel 1966,
Brauch 1977) and its adjustments has created the legal
and institutional framework for the evolution of the
national security state, sometimes also referred to as
a military-industrial complex (Eisenhower 1972). This
evolution has been encapsulated in the US debate on
the concepts of national and since 2001 also homeland security.
1.6.3
Analysis of Concepts and their Linkages

in Philosophy
The evolution and systematic analysis of concepts has

been a major task of political philosophy and of the
history of ideas. In German several philosophical publications documented the contemporary philosophy
and its concepts in its interrelationship to their hi-

storical structure and the sciences.3 From a philosophical perspective after the end of the Cold War,
Makropoulos (1995: 745750) analysed the evolution
of the German concept Sicherheit from its Latin and
Greek origins and its evolution and transformation
during the medieval period, after the reformation as a
concept in theology, philosophy, politics and law,
with a special focus on Hobbes, Locke, Wolff, Rousseau, and Kant. In the 20th century he reviewed the
prevention and compensation of genuinely social and
technical insecurity as well as new social risks. While
this article briefly noted the concept of social security the key concept of national security or the more
recent concepts of human security were not mentioned.
1.6.4
Security Concepts in National Public

and International Law
Since the 18th century the security concept was widely

used in the context of constitutional or public law for
the legal system providing Rechtssicherheit for the
citizens in their engagement with the state. The concepts of international peace and security have been
repeatedly used in the Covenant and in the UN Charter where Art. 1,1 outlines its key purpose:
be limited in its impact. In addition he referred to

the defining characteristic of the concept of collective security [as] the protection of the members of the
system against a possible attack on the part of any
other member of the same system, and he noted that
the distinction drawn between the concepts of collective security and collective self-defence has been
blurred to some extent in practice, and it also has lost
relevance with respect to the United Nations because
due to the universal nature of the UN system any distinction based upon external or internal acts of aggression [have been rendered] meaningless.
1.6.5
a condition in which States consider that there is no

danger of military attack, political pressure or economic
coercion, so that they are able to pursue freely their own
development and progress. International security is thus
the result and the sum of the security of each and every
State member of the international community; accordingly, international security cannot be reached without
full international cooperation. However, security is a relative rather than an absolute term. National and international security need to be viewed as matters of degree
(UN 1986: 2).
Secretary-General Prez de Cullar noted that concepts of security are the different bases on which
States and the international community as a whole
rely for their security and he observed that the
4
3
See e.g. the historical dictionary of philosophy (Historisches Wrterbuch der Philosophie) published first in
1899 by Rudolf Eisler, and its fourth edition (1927
1930). A different approach was pursued in the new Historisches Wrterbuch der Philosophie, launched and
edited by Joachim Ritter and written by a team of more
than 1,500 scholars that has been published in twelve
volumes between 1971 and 2004. It includes four types
of contributions: a) terminological articles, b) key concepts with minor changes in history, c) combined concepts in their systematic context (e.g. in logic), and d)
historical method for more detailed articles that track
the continuity and change of concepts from Classical
Greek to contemporary philosophical treatments.
Debate on Security Concepts within the

United Nations
In a report of the Secretary-General on Concepts of

Security (UN 1986)4 that was prepared by government
experts from Algeria, Venezuela, Sweden (chair),
China, GDR, Romania, Uganda, USSR, Argentina,
Yugoslavia, Malaysia, India and Australia security was
defined as:
to maintain international peace and security, and to that

end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace 2. to develop
friendly relations among nations 3. to achieve international cooperation [and] 4. to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these
common ends.
Wolfrum (1994: 51) points to the subjective and objective elements of international security, the pursuit of
which implies a transformation of international relations so that every state is assured that peace will not
be broken, or at least that any breach of the peace will
35
The GA in Res. 37/99 of 13 December 1983 called for a

comprehensive study of concepts of security, in particular security policies which emphasize cooperative
efforts and mutual understanding between states, with a
view of developing proposals for policies aimed at preventing the arms race, building confidence in relations
between states, enhancing the possibility of reaching
agreements on arms limitation and disarmament and
promoting political and economic security (UN DOC
A/40/533). This resulted in several reports published
by the Secretary-General on the Relationship between
Disarmament and International Security (Disarmament
Study Series No. 8, 1982); on Concepts of Security
(Disarmament Study Series No. 14, 1986) and on Study
on Defensive Security Concepts and Policies (Disarmament Study Series No. 26, 1993).
Hans Gnter Brauch
36
group recognized the different security concepts
[that] have evolved in response to the need for national security and as a result of changing political,
military, economic and other circumstances. He
summarized the groups common understanding on
six elements of a security concept:
a) All nations have the right to security.
b) The use of military force for purposes other then
self-defence is no legitimate instrument of national
policy.
c) Security should be understood in comprehensive
terms, recognizing the growing interdependence
of political, military, economic, social, geographical and technological factors.
d) Security is the concern of all nations and in the
light of the threat of proliferating challenges to
global security all nations have the right and duty
to participate in the search for constructive solutions.
e) The worlds diversities with respect to ethnic origins, language, culture, history, customs, ideologies, political institutions, socio-economic systems and levels of development should not be
allowed to constitute obstacles to international
cooperation for peace and security.
f) Disarmament and arms limitationis an important approach to international peace and security
and it has thus become the most urgent task facing the entire international community (UN 1986:
v-vi).
Since 1990, Secretaries-General Boutros Ghali (1992,
1995) and Annan (2005) have conceptualized security
and human security that according to Annans report
In Longer Freedom is based on freedom from want,
freedom from fear and freedom to live in dignity.
For the post Cold War (19902006) years,
Michael Bothe (chap. 35) reviewed the changes in the
use of the concept of security in UNSC decisions on
activities that have been considered as threats to international peace and security or as breaches of
peace. Jrgen Dedring (chap. 46) reviewed the introduction of the human security concept in the deliberations of the Security Council as a result of the
activities of Canada on the protection of civilians in
armed conflicts while Fuentes (2002; 2008) analysed
the activities of the Human Security Network in the
promotion of a common human security agenda
within and outside of the UN system.
In the scientific disciplines reviewed in this volume, key changes could be noticed in the meaning of
the concept of security as well as in the five dimen-
sions of a wider security concept. This process of reconceptualizing security since 1990 could also be observed in statements of international organizations
(UN, OSCE, EU, OECD, NATO) and in the interfaces between security and development. Much evidence could be found for the working hypothesis that
the global turn has resulted in a reconceptualization
of security.
1.6.6
Reconceptualization of Regional
Security
New security concepts have been adopted with the

Declaration of the Organization of American States
in October 2003 in Mexico (chap. 69 by Rojas), with
the European Security Strategy of 2003 (chap. 51 by
Hintermeier) by the European Union, by the United
Nations in 2005 (chap. 47 by Einsiedel/Nitschke), as
well as by NATO (chap. 55 by Dunay; chap. 56 by Bin)
but also new collective security tasks have been taken
up by the UN Security Council.
However, this retrospective analysis is not sufficient. With the ongoing globalization process, new
transnational non-state actors (from transnational corporations, to terrorist and crime networks) have directly affected objective security dangers and subjective concerns. It is not only international terrorism
that has become a major new security danger and
thus the major object of securitization in many US national security policy statements and in numerous UN
and other resolutions by IGOs, threats to human security in other parts of the world are also posed by
the impact of global climate change via an increase in
the number and intensity of natural hazards and disasters (storms, cyclones, hurricanes but also drought)
that are caused by anthropogenic activities that are
partly responsible for the misery of those affected
most by extreme weather events (e.g. by cyclones in
Bangladesh or by drought in the Sahel zone). These
events have contributed to internal displacement and
migration and have thus reached the North as new
soft security problems (Brauch 2002; Oswald 2007).
All these developments caused by global environmental change have contributed to the emergence of
a new phase in earth history, the anthropocene
(Crutzen 2002; Crutzen/Stoermer 2000; Clark/Crutzen/Schellnhuber; Oswald/Brauch/Dalby 2008) that
poses new security dangers and concerns, and for
many people in the South and for some of the most
vulnerable and affected also a survival dilemma
(Brauch 2004, and chap. 42).

Thus, besides the global turn of 1990, several regional and national structural changes, the impacts of
globalization, and with global environmental change a
new set of dangers and concerns for the security and
survival of humankind are evolving. The perception of
or the securitization of these new security dangers as
threats for international, regional, national, and human security have all contributed to a reconceptualization of security.
1.7
Three Volumes on
Reconceptualizing Security
This book is the first of three volumes that address

different aspects of an intellectual mapping of the
ongoing process of reconceptualizing security. The
two related volumes address:
Facing Global Environmental Change: Environmental, Human, Energy, Food, Health and Water
Security Concepts;
Coping with Global Environmental Change, Disasters and Security Threats, Challenges, Vulnerabilities and Risks.
These three books in the Hexagon Series on Human
and Environmental Security and Peace (HESP) aim
to achieve these scientific goals: a) a global NorthSouth scientific debate on reconceptualizing security;
b) a multidisciplinary debate and learning; and c) a
dialogue between academia and policymakers in international organizations, national governments and
between academia and nongovernmental actors in
civil society and in social movements on security concepts. These three volumes focus on the conceptual
thinking on a wide notion of security in all parts of
the world that is used to legitimate the allocation of
public and private resources and to justify the use of
force both to protect and to kill people in the realization of major values.
The hexagon represents six key factors contributing to global environmental change three nature-induced or supply factors: soil, water and air (atmosphere and climate), and three human-induced or
demand factors: population change (growth and decline), urban systems (industry, habitat, pollution) and
rural systems (agriculture, food, nature protection).
Throughout the history of the earth and of the homo
sapiens these six factors have interacted. The supply
factors have created the preconditions for life while
human behaviour and economic consumption patterns have contributed to its challenges (increase in
37
extreme weather events) and fatal outcomes for human beings and society. The Hexagon series will
cover the complex interactions among these six factors and their extreme and in some cases even fatal
outcomes (hazards/disasters, internal displacements
and forced migration, crises, and conflicts), as well as
crucial social science concepts relevant for their analysis.
Issues in three research fields on environment, security, and peace, especially in the environmental security realm and from a human security perspective,
will be addressed with the goal to contribute to a
fourth phase of research on environmental security
from a normative peace research and/or human security perspective (Brauch 2003; Dalby/Brauch/Oswald
2008). This book series offers a platform for scientific
communities dealing with global environmental and
climate change, disaster reduction, environmental security, peace and conflict research, as well as for the
humanitarian aid and the policy community in governments and international organizations.
1.8
Goals, Structure, Authors and

Audience of this Book
The basic research questions this global reference

book addresses are threefold:
Did these manifold structural changes in the political order trigger a rethinking or reconceptualization of the key security concept globally, nationally, and locally?
To which extent were two other global processes
instrumental for this new thinking on security: a)
the process of economic, political, and cultural
globalization and b) the evolving perception of
the impact of global environmental change (GEC)
due to climate change, soil erosion, and desertification as well as water scarcity and deterioration?
Or were the changes in the thinking on security
the result of a scientific revolution (Kuhn 1962)
resulting in a major paradigm shift?
1.8.1
Theoretical Contexts for Security

Reconceptualizations
The first two chapters introduce into the international

debate on reconceptualizing security since 1989.
Czeslaw Mesjasz approaches the reconceptualizing of
security from the vantage point of systems theory as
attributes of social systems.
Hans Gnter Brauch
38
1.8.2
Security, Peace, Development and

Environment
Hans Gnter Brauch (chap. 3) introduces a conceptual quartet consisting of Security, Peace, Environment and Development that are addressed by four
specialized research programmes of peace research,
security, development, and environmental studies. After an analysis of six linkages between these key concepts, four linkage concepts will be discussed: a) the
security dilemma (for the peace-security linkage); b)
the concept of sustainable development (for the development-environment linkage); c) sustainable peace
(peace-development-environment linkage) and the
new concept of a d) survival dilemma (security-environment-development linkage). Six experts review the
debates on efforts to reconceptualize these six dyadic
linkages: 1: peace and security (chap. 4 by Ole
Wver); 2: peace and development (chap. 5 by Indra
de Soysa.); 3: peace and environment (chap. 6 by rsula Oswald Spring); 4: development and security
(chap. 7 by Peter Uvin); 5: development and environment (chap. 8 by Casey Brown); and 6: security and
environment (chap. 9 by Simon Dalby).
While since the French Revolution (1789) many
political concepts (including peace and security) were
reconceptualized, the political concepts of development and environment have gradually evolved since
the 1950s and 1970s on national and international
political agendas. The authors of chapters 4 to 9 were
invited to consider these questions:
a) Has the peace and security agenda in the UN
Charter been adapted to a global contextual
change with the disappearance of bipolarity and
the emergence of a single superpower? Has the
understanding of the classic concepts affecting
peace and security: sovereignty, non-use of force
(Art. 2,4) and non-intervention (Art. II,7 of UN
Charter) changed with the increase of humanitarian interventions and peacekeeping operations?
b) Which impact did the increase in violence in Europe since 1991, the emergence of new asymmetric, ethno-religious, internal conflicts, and the
challenge by non-state actors in a rapidly globalizing world have on the theoretical debates on the
six dyadic linkages?
c) Which impact did the change in the peace-security
dyad have on environment and development concepts? Did environment and development policies
benefit from the global turn? Was it instrumental
for the increase in failing states (Somalia, Afghanistan)?
d) Have the summits in Rio de Janeiro (UNCED,

1992) and in Johannesburg (UNSSD, 2002), and
the formulation of the Millennium Development
Goals benefited from the turn?
e) Has the attack of 11 September 2001 on the US
changed the priorities of security and development policies, nationally, regionally and globally?
Not all authors have responded to these questions,
rather they discussed questions they considered the
most relevant from their respective scientific and
research perspective. They have widened and deepened the concepts from disciplines and have introduced southern perspectives to the security discourse.
1.8.3
Philosophical, Ethical, and Religious

Contexts for Reconceptualizing Security
During the Cold War national and international security was a key policy concept for allocating financial
resources and legitimating policies on the use of
force. During this period the thinking on security of
American and Soviet scholars dominated the paradigms and conceptual debates in the West and East,
but also in the divided South. With the end of the
Cold War this conceptual dichotomy was overcome.
In the post Cold War era, prior to and after 11 September 2001, theoreticians have reconceptualized security in different directions.
Samuel P. Huntingtons (1996) simplification of a
new Islamic-Confucian threat used cultural notions
to legitimate military postures to stabilize the Western
dominance and US leadership. Huntington provoked
many critical replies by scholars from different regions, cultures and religions. Instead of reducing culture to an object for the legitimization of the military
power of one country, the authors in part III have
been asked to review the thinking on security in their
own culture or religion as it has evolved over centuries
and has and may still influence implicitly the thinking
and action of policymakers in their region.
Introducing part III, rsula Oswald Spring (Mexico, chap. 10) compares the thinking on peace in the
East, West, and South. Eight chapters were written by
authors representing different cultures and religions:
Eun-Jeung Lee (Korea, chap. 13 on: Security in Confucianism and in Korean philosophy and ethics); Mitsuo
and Tamayo Okamoto (Japan, chap. 14 on: Security
in Japanese philosophy and ethics); Naresh Dadhich
(India, chap. 15 on: Thinking on security in Hinduism
and in contemporary political philosophy and ethics
in India); Robert Eisen (USA, chap. 16 on security in

Jewish philosophy and ethics); Frederik Arends (Netherlands, chap. 17: security in Western philosophy and
ethics); Hassan Hanafi (Egypt, chap. 18: security in
Arab and Muslim philosophy and ethics); Jacob Emmanuel Mabe (Cameroon/Germany, chap. 19: Security in African philosophy, ethics and history of ideas);
Georgina Snchez (Mexico, chap. 20: Security in Mesoamerican philosophy, ethics and history of ideas);
Domcio Proena Jnior and Eugenio Diniz (Brazil,
chap. 21: The Brazilian view on the conceptualization
of security: philosophical, ethical and cultural contexts and issues); while Michael von Brck (Germany,
chap. 11: security in Buddhism and Hinduism), and
Kurt W. Radtke (Germany/Netherlands, chap. 12: Security in Chinese, Korean and Japanese philosophy
and ethics) compare the thinking on security in two
eastern religions and the thinking in Chinese, Korean,
and Japanese philosophy and ethics. The authors
were invited to discuss these questions:
a) Which security concepts have been used in the
respective philosophy, ethics, and religion?
b) How have these concepts evolved in different philosophical, ethical, and religious debates?
c) What are the referents of the thinking on security:
a) humankind, b) the nation state, c) society, or d)
the individual human being?
d) How are these concepts being used today and do
these religious and philosophical traditions still
influence the thinking of decision-makers on security in the early 21st century?
e) Did the global contextual change of 1990 as well
as the events of 11 September 2001 have an impact
on the religious, philosophical, and ethical debates
related to security?
The goal of this part is to sensitize the readers not to
perceive the world only through the narrow conceptual lenses prevailing primarily in the Western or
North Atlantic debates on security concepts and policies. Rather, the cultural, philosophical and religious
diversity that influence the thinking on and related
policies may sensitize policymakers.
1.8.4
Spatial Context and Referents of

Security Concepts
During the Cold War the narrow national security

concept has prevailed (table 1.2). Since 1990 two parallel debates have taken place among analysts of globalization (in OECD countries) focusing on processes
of de-territorialization and de-borderization as well as
proponents of new spatial approaches to internatio-
39
nal relations (geo-strategy, geopolitics, geo-economics). There was no significant controversy between
both schools. Both approaches may contribute to an
understanding of the co-existence of pre-modern,
modern and post-modern thinking on sovereignty and
its relationship to security. The major dividing line between both perspectives, often pursued in the tradition of realism or pragmatism, is the role of space in
international affairs (see chap. 22 by Brauch).
In the Westphalian system sovereign states may be
defined in terms of a) territory, b) people, and c) government (system of rule). Thus, the territorial category of space has been a constituent of modern international politics. No state exits without a clearly
defined territory. Spatiality is the term used to describe the dynamic and interdependent relationship
between a societys construction of space on society
(Soja 1985). This concept applies not only to the social
level, but also to the individual, for it draws attention
to the fact that this relationship takes place through
individual human actions, and also constrains and enables these actions (Giddens 1984). During the 1960s
and 1970s, spatial science was widely used in geography and it attracted practitioners interested in spatial
order and in related policies (Schmidt 1995: 798
799). However, the micro level analyses in human geography are of no relevance for international relations
where the concept of territoriality is often used as:
a strategy which uses bounded spaces in the exercise of
power and influence. Most social scientists focus
on the efficiency of territoriality as a strategy, in a large
variety of circumstances, involving the exercise of
power, influence and domination. The efficiency of
territoriality is exemplified by the large number of containers into which the earths surface is divided. By far
the best example of its benefits to those wishing to exercise power is the state, which is necessarily a territorial
body. Within its territory, the state apparatus assumes
sovereign power: all residents are required to obey the
laws of the land in order for the state to undertake its
central roles within society; boundaries are policed to
control people and things entering and leaving. Some
argue that territoriality is a necessary strategy for the
modern state, which could not operate successfully
without it (Johnston 1996: 871; Mann 1984).
This very notion of the territoriality of the state has

been challenged by international relations specialists.
Herz (1959) argued that the territorial state could easily be penetrated by intercontinental missiles armed
with nuclear weapons. In the 1970s, some globalists
announced the death of the state as the key actor of
international politics, and during the recent debate
some analysts of globalization proclaimed the end of
Hans Gnter Brauch
40
the nation state and a progressing deborderization
and deterritorialization have become key issues of
analysis from the two opposite and competing perspectives of globalization and geopolitique but also
from critical geopolitics. For the deborderized territories a new form of raison dtat may be needed.
The authors of part IV have been invited to
address the following questions:
a) Has the debate on security been influenced by the
two schools focusing on globalization and geopolitics as well as by pre-modern, modern, and postmodern thinking on space?
b) To which extent have there been changes in the
spatial referents of security, with regard to global
environmental change, globalization, regionalization, the nation state, as well as sub-national actors, such as societal, ethnic and religious groups,
terrorist networks, or transnational criminal
groups active in narco-trafficking?
The authors of the twelve chapters address two competing approaches of globalization vs. critical geopolitics or ecological geopolitics vs. political geo-ecology
(chap. 22 by Hans Gnter Brauch); on astructural setting for global environmental politics in a hierarchic
international system from a geopolitical view (chap.
23 by Vilho Harle and Sami Moisio); the role and contributions of the Global Environmental Change and
Human Security (GECHS) project within IHDP
(Chap. 24 by Jon Barnett, Karen OBrien and Richard
Matthew); globalization and security: the US Imperial Presidency: global impacts in Iraq and Mexico
(chap. 25 by John Saxe-Fernndez); and on: Globalization from below: The World Social Forum: A platform for reconceptualizing security? (chap. 26: by rsula Oswald Spring).
Mustafa Aydin and Sinem Acikmese (chap. 27)
discuss identity-based security threats in a globalized
world with a focus on Islam, while Bjrn Hettne
(chap. 28): in world regions as referents reviews concepts of regionalism and regionalization of security.
Bharat Karnad (chap. 29) addresses the nation state
as the key referent with a focus on concepts of national security, while Varun Sahni (chap. 30) provides
a critical analysis of the role of sub-national actors (society, ethnic, religious groups) as referents. Gunhild
Hoogensen (chap. 31) focuses on terrorist networks
and Arlene B. Tickner and Ann C. Mason (chap. 32)
on criminal narco-traffic groups as non-state actors as
referents and finally Jacek Kugler (chap. 33) offers his
ideas on reconceptualizing of security research by integrating individual level data.
1.8.5
Reconceptualization of Security in
Scientific Disciplines
The security concept is used in many scientific disciplines and programmes. In this part Jean Marc
Coicaud (chap. 34) contemplates on security as a philosophical construct, Michael Bothe (chap. 35) offers
an empirical review of the changing security concept
as reflected in resolutions of the UN Security Council,
while S. Mansoob Murshed (chap. 36) discusses the
changing use of security in economics, John Baylis
(chap. 37) reviews the changing use of the security
concept in international relations, and Ulrich Albrecht
and Hans Gnter Brauch (chap. 38) reconstruct the
changes in the security concept in security studies and
peace research. The authors were invited to discuss
these questions:
a) Did a reconceptualization of security occur in
these scientific disciplines and programmes?
b) Did the global turn of 1990 and the events of 11
September 2001 have an influence or major impact on a reconceptualization of security or have
other developments (e.g. globalization or demography) or events been more instrumental?
c) Which other factors were instrumental for a reconceptualization, e.g. of risk, risk society and modernity, that directly influence the scientific debate on
security?
1.8.6
Reconceptualizing Dimensions of
Security since 1990
Laura Shepherd and Jutta Weldes (chap. 39) introduce

into the sixth part by discussing security as the state
(of) being free from danger, and Hans Gnter Brauch
(chap. 40) contrasts the state-centred security dilemma (Herz 1959) with a people-centred survival
dilemma. Barry Buzan, Ole Wver and Jaap de Wilde
(1998) distinguished among five sectors or dimensions
of security of which they analyse in this book the military (Buzan, chap. 41), societal (Wver, chap. 44),
and environmental (de Wilde, chap. 45) security
dimensions while the political one is discussed by
Thomaz Guedes da Costa (chap. 42) and economic
one by Czesaw Mesjasz (chap. 43). They were invited
to reflect on these questions:
a) To which extent have new theoretical paradigms,
approaches, and concepts in different parts of the
world influenced the reconceptualization of security dimensions?

b) To which extent have different worldviews, cognitive lenses, and mindsets framed the securitization
of the five key sectors or dimensions of security?
c) To which extent has the conceptualization of the
five sectors or dimensions of security been influenced by the global turn of 1989 and by the events
of 11 September 2001?
d) Has there been a fundamental difference in the
perception of the impact of both events in
Europe, in the USA, and in other parts of the
world for the five security dimensions?
e) Has the policy relevance of different security dimensions contributed to competing security agendas, and were they instrumental for the clash
among conflicting views of security in the UN Security Council since 2002, prior to and after the
war in Iraq?
1.8.7
Institutional Security Concepts Revisited

for the 21st Century
With the end of the Cold War, the bipolar system that
relied primarily on systems of collective self-defence
(Art. 51 of UN Charter) has been overcome with the
dissolution of the Warsaw Treaty Organization in
1991. In a brief interlude from 19911994, the systems
of global and regional collective security were on the
rise, and even NATO, the only remaining system of
collective self-defence, was ready to act under a mandate of the CSCE, or since 1994 of the OSCE. However, with the failure of the UN and OSCE to cope
with the conflicts in the post Yugoslav space, since
1994 NATOs relevance grew again, and with its gradual enlargement from 16 to 27 countries, NATO has
again become the major security institution for hard
security issues while the role of the UN system and of
its regional collective security organizations expanded
also into the soft human security areas.
Since 1994, when UNDP first introduced the human security concept, this concept has been debated
by the UN Security Council (see chap. 46 by Jrgen
Dedring), in reports by the UN Secretary-General
(chap. 47 by Sebastian Einsiedel, Heiko Nitzschke and
Tarun Chhabra) and has been used by UNDP as well
as by UNESCO and other UN organizations such as
UNU (Bogardi/Brauch 2005, 2005a). The reconceptualization of security in the CSCE and OSCE since
1990 is documented by Monika Wohlfeld (chap. 49).
Four chapters review the complex reconceptualization of security by and within the European Union,
from the perspective of the chair of the EUs Military
Committee (Chap. 50 by General Rolando Mosca
41
Moschini) who presents its comprehensive security

concept, while Stefan Hintermeier (chap. 51) focuses
on the reconceptualization of the EUs foreign and security policy since 1990 and Andreas Maurer and Roderick Parkes (chap. 52) deal with the EUs justice and
home affairs policy and democracy from the Amsterdam to The Hague Programme and finally Magnus
Ekengren (chap. 53) focuses on the EUs functional security by moving from intergovernmental to community-based security concepts and policies.
Two chapters focus on the reconceptualization of
security in NATO since 1990 (Pl Dunay, chap. 55)
and on NATOs role in the Mediterranean and the
Middle East after the Istanbul Summit (Alberto Bin,
chap. 56). The security and development nexus is introduced by Peter Uvin (chap. 8), the coordination issues within the UN system is addressed by Ole Jacob
Sending (chap. 48) and the harmonization of the
three goals of peace, security, and development for
the EU by Louka T. Katseli (chap. 54). From the perspective of Germany Stephan Klingebiel and Katja
Roehder (chap. 58) carry the considerations further by
discussing the manifold new interfaces between development and security, while Ortwin Hennig and Reinhold Elges (chap. 57) review the German Action Plan
for civilian crisis prevention, conflict resolution, and
peace consolidation as a practical experience with the
reconceptualization of security and its implementation in a new diplomatic instrument. The authors of
part VII were asked to consider these questions:
a) Which concepts of security have been used by the
respective international organizations in their charter and basic policy documents? To which extent
has the understanding of security changed in the
declaratory as well as in the operational policy of
this security institution? To which extent was the
global turn of 1989 instrumental for a reconceptualization of security by the UN, its independent global and regional organizations and programmes?
b) Has there been a shrinking of the prevailing post
Cold War security concept since 11 September
2001, both in declaratory and operational terms?
To which extent has there been a widening, a
deepening or a sectorialization of security since
1990 in OSCE, EU and NATO, and to which
extent has this been reflected in NATOs role in
the Mediterranean and in the Middle East? And to
which extent did the security institutions adopt
the concepts of environmental and human security
in their policy declarations and in their operative
policy activities?
Hans Gnter Brauch
42
1.8.8
Reconceptualizing Regional Security for

the 21st Century
A major reconceptualization of security has been triggered by the fundamental global contextual change
that occurred with the end of the Cold War. The narrow Hobbesian view of security threats posed by the
military capabilities and intentions of the other military alliance has been overcome and replaced by a
widening, deepening and sectorialization of the regional thinking on security. The security concepts offer a framework for the analysis of hard security
threats and manifold political, economic, environmental security challenges, vulnerabilities and risks.
The redefinition of security interests by security institutions as influenced by the conceptual lenses that influence the subjective security perception.
Among the authors of part VIII are the foreign minister of Nigeria Joy Ogwu who offers a regional political security perspective from and for Western Africa (chap. 62) while Alfred Nhema and Martin
Rupiya (Zimbabwe, chap. 63) provide a grim regional
security perspective from and for the Horn, Eastern
and Southern Africa, and Naison Ngoma and Len le
Roux (Zambia, South Africa, chap. 64) offer a regional
security perspective from and for Southern Africa.
The regional security in Europe in the 21st century
is analyzed by Sven Biscop (Belgium, chap. 59), while
Mustafa Aydin and Neslihan Kaptanolu (Turkey,
chap. 60) discuss three concepts of regionalization of
great power security concerns for the intertwining between the new neighborhood, the near abroad, and
the greater and wider Middle East while Bechir
Chourou (Tunisia, chap. 61) contributes a regional security perspective from and for the Arab world. Three
regional security perspectives for three sub-regions in
Asia are offered by Navnita Chadha Behera (India,
chap. 65) for South Asia, by Eu-Jeung Lee (chap. 66)
for China, South and North Korea and Japan and by
Liu Cheng and Alan Hunter (China/UK, chap. 67)
for China for the early 21st century. Kevin P. Clements
and Wendy L. Foley (Australia, New Zealand, chap.
68) review the regional security debate in the South
Pacific on peace and security with alternative formulations in the post-Cold War era and Francisco Rojas
Aravenna (Chile, chap. 69) assesses the key regional
security issues on the American continent, its challenges, perceptions, and concepts and P.H. Liotta
(USA) and James F. Miskel (USA) offer thoughts for
an ethical framework for security. The authors of part
VIII were invited to consider these questions:
a) Which impact did scientific and political security

discourses and communication processes have on
the reconceptualization of regional security?
b) How relevant have security concepts been for the
formulation of security interests in international
politics and international relations? Which role has
the rethinking of security in the new millennium
played in regional debates on peace and security in
Europe, in the Neighbourhood, Near Abroad, and
Greater or Wider Middle East?
1.8.9
Reconceptualizing Security and

Alternative Futures
This part will carry the discussion on security concepts into the future from a theoretical perspective on
prediction in security theory and policy by Czesaw
Mesjasz (chap. 71), from the vantage point of two military officers, Heinz Dieter Jopp and Roland Kaestner
(chap. 72), and of an environmental and hazard specialist Gordon A. McBean (chap. 74) who discusses
the role of prediction with regards to natural hazards
and sustainable development. Heikki Patomki (chap.
73) debates from a hypothetical scenario on learning
from possible futures for global security.
1.8.10
Summary Conclusions
In this final part rsula Oswald Spring and Hans

Gnter Brauch (chap. 75) summarize the results of
this global mapping of the rethinking on security.
Based on the analysis of the trends in global thinking
the authors discuss the policy relevance of security
concepts for the structuring of the security debate
and for policy-making both in national governments
and in international organizations.
1.9
Editorial Process
As indicated above (1.7) this book differs from available publications on security by aiming at a fourfold dialogue. Such an ambitious effort may transcend the
narrow professional or institutional horizon of some
reviewers who often expect that such a project should
be developed within the mainstream methodological
approaches of international relations.
The editors pursue three goals: a) to contribute to
problem awareness for the different security concepts
in North and South, on hard and soft security issues,
on non-military, primarily environmental challenges
and environmental security problems; b) to stimulate

and encourage interdisciplinary scientific research and
political efforts to resolve, prevent, and avoid that
environmental factors may contribute to violent conflicts (both scientific and political agenda-setting); and
c) to contribute to a better understanding of the complex interactions between natural processes, nature
and human-induced regional environmental changes
(learning).
While power has once been defined by Karl
Deutsch (1963, 1966) as not having to learn, during the
20th century the resistance to any anticipatory learning
by those who control the resources over outcomes has
been significant. In history, it often required severe foreign policy and domestic crises (e.g. in the US in the
1970s during the Vietnam War and in the former Soviet Union in the 1980s during the Afghanistan War) to
stimulate major re-assessments of existing foreign and
security policies and to launch fundamental revisions.
Several scientists (E.U. von Weizscker 1989; E.O.
Wilson 1998) have described the 21st century as the century of the environment. For the new century, Edward
O. Wilson (1998a) has referred to a growing consilience, i.e. the interlocking of causal explanations across
disciplines, what implies that the interfaces of disciplines become as important as the disciplines. Ted
Munn (2002), in his preface to the Encyclopedia of
Global Environmental Change, argued based on Wilson:
that this interlocking amongst the natural sciences will
in the 21st century also touch the borders of the social
sciences and humanities. In the environmental context,
environmental scientists in diverse specialties, including
human ecology, are more precisely defining the area in
which that species arose, and those parts that must be
sustained for human survival (Wilson 1998).
Anticipatory learning must acknowledge this need for

a growing consilience that causal explanations across
disciplines may contribute to new understanding and
knowledge that will be needed to cope with the challenges of the international risk society (Beck 1992,
1999, 2007).
All authors of this and subsequent volume were
specifically invited by the lead editor in consultation
with John Grin and Czesaw Mesjasz to contribute to
three workshops on reconceptualizing security at the:
45th Annual ISA Convention in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1720 March 20045;
20th IPRA Conference in Sopron, Hungary, 59
July 20046;
5
See the presentations at: <http://www.afes-press.de/

html/download_isa.html>.
43
Fifth Pan-European Conference on International

Relations (ECPR) in The Hague, the Netherlands,
811 September 2004.7
At these workshops all papers were critiqued by discussants and by the audience. All chapters in this volume have been peer reviewed by at least two anonymous reviewers, and subsequently all chapters in this
volume have been revised by the authors.
This book is not addressed only to the political
science, international relations, strategic studies,
peace research, development, and environmental
studies community in the OECD world. Its scope is
broader and more ambitious. It intends to broaden
the scope and to sensitize the reader to the thinking
in different disciplines, cultures, and global regions,
especially on nature and humankind. The editors have
worked hard that these three related books on reconceptualizing security will be of relevance for scholars,
educators and students and the more generally academically trained audience in many scientific disciplines, such as: political science (international relations,
security studies, environmental studies, peace research, conflict and war studies); sociology (security
conceptualization and risk society); economics (globalization and security); philosophy, theology, comparative religion and culture (security conceptualization); international law (security conceptualization),
geosciences (global environmental change, climate
change, desertification, water), geography (global environmental change, population, urbanization, food);
military science (military academies).
The global thinking on security is also of importance for policymakers and their advisers on the national and international level in: a) foreign, defence, development, and environment ministries and their
policy-oriented think tanks; b) international organizations: NATO, European institutions, UN, UNESCO,
FAO, WHO, UNDP, UNEP, IEA, UNU, et al.; c) for
the Human Security Network; d) for the environment
and security network of the representatives of 27 EU
foreign ministries; and in e) nongovernmental organizations in the areas of foreign and defence, development
and environment policies; as well as for f) diverse social
and indigenous movements. The thinking on security
and on the specific security policies of countries, alliances, and international organizations are also a special
focus for educators (at all levels) and media specialists.
6
7

html/download_sopron.html>.
html/the_hague_programme.html>.
http://www.springer.com/978-3-540-75976-8

Globalization and Environmental Challenges - Reconceptualizing Security in The 21st Century - Hans Günter Brauch PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Globalization and Environmental Challenges - Reconceptualizing Security in The 21st Century - Hans Günter Brauch PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

00_GEC_Hex3.book Seite 27 Sonntag, 28.

Oktober 2007 1:18 13

Introduction: Globalization and Environmental Challenges:

in China (19781990); the end of the dictatorships

Object: Term and Concept of

Security is a basic term and a key concept in the social

00_GEC_Hex3.book Seite 28 Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2007 1:18 13

Hans Gnter Brauch

Social, energy, food , health, livelihood threats,

Security dilemma of competing states

Securing energy, food, health, livelihood etc.

to a context and a specific individual or societal value

00_GEC_Hex3.book Seite 29 Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2007 1:18 13

Introduction: Globalization and Environmental Challenges: Reconceptualizing Security

National Security [political,

Other states, guerilla, terrorism

Societal security [dimension]

(States) Nations, migrants,

State, globalization, GEC, nature,

Patriarchy, totalitarian institutions

military concept, and an extended security concept

on the political context. While in Europe climate

Events Structures Concepts

Political and scientific concepts, like security, are used

00_GEC_Hex3.book Seite 30 Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2007 1:18 13

Hans Gnter Brauch

Contextual Change, Conceptual

00_GEC_Hex3.book Seite 31 Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2007 1:18 13

Introduction: Globalization and Environmental Challenges: Reconceptualizing Security

00_GEC_Hex3.book Seite 32 Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2007 1:18 13

Hans Gnter Brauch

A large majority of US IR scholars opposed unilateral

Drivers and Centres of

The drivers of the theoretical discourse on security

curity or defensive defence in Europe was looking

00_GEC_Hex3.book Seite 33 Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2007 1:18 13

Introduction: Globalization and Environmental Challenges: Reconceptualizing Security

security concerns emerged during the 1980s and

History, Social Sciences,

00_GEC_Hex3.book Seite 34 Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2007 1:18 13

Hans Gnter Brauch

Contextual Change and Conceptual

The history of concepts was instrumental for a major

The national security concept in the US resulted

Conceptual Mapping in the Social

In the social sciences, the security concept has been

Analysis of Concepts and their Linkages

The evolution and systematic analysis of concepts has

00_GEC_Hex3.book Seite 35 Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2007 1:18 13

Introduction: Globalization and Environmental Challenges: Reconceptualizing Security

Security Concepts in National Public

Since the 18th century the security concept was widely

be limited in its impact. In addition he referred to

a condition in which States consider that there is no

Debate on Security Concepts within the

In a report of the Secretary-General on Concepts of

to maintain international peace and security, and to that

The GA in Res. 37/99 of 13 December 1983 called for a

00_GEC_Hex3.book Seite 36 Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2007 1:18 13

Hans Gnter Brauch

New security concepts have been adopted with the

00_GEC_Hex3.book Seite 37 Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2007 1:18 13